1. Immunology and Inflammation
Download icon

α-actinin accounts for the bioactivity of actin preparations in inducing STAT target genes in Drosophila melanogaster

  1. Oliver Gordon
  2. Conor M Henry
  3. Naren Srinivasan
  4. Susan Ahrens
  5. Anna Franz
  6. Safia Deddouche
  7. Probir Chakravarty
  8. David Phillips
  9. Roger George
  10. Svend Kjaer
  11. David Frith
  12. Ambrosius P Snijders
  13. Rita S Valente
  14. Carolina J Simoes da Silva
  15. Luis Teixeira
  16. Barry Thompson
  17. Marc S Dionne
  18. Will Wood
  19. Caetano Reis e Sousa  Is a corresponding author
  1. The Francis Crick Institute, United Kingdom
  2. Biomedical Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
  3. Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia, Portugal
  4. Imperial College London, United Kingdom
  5. MRC Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Research Advance
  • Cited 2
  • Views 1,185
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e38636 doi: 10.7554/eLife.38636

Abstract

Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) are molecules exposed or released by dead cells that trigger or modulate immunity and tissue repair. In vertebrates, the cytoskeletal component F-actin is a DAMP specifically recognised by DNGR-1, an innate immune receptor. Previously we suggested that actin is also a DAMP in Drosophila melanogaster by inducing STAT-dependent genes (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Here, we revise that conclusion and report that α-actinin is far more potent than actin at inducing the same STAT response and can be found in trace amounts in actin preparations. Recombinant expression of actin or α-actinin in bacteria demonstrated that only α-actinin could drive the expression of STAT target genes in Drosophila. The response to injected α-actinin required the same signalling cascade that we had identified in our previous work using actin preparations. Taken together, these data indicate that α-actinin rather than actin drives STAT activation when injected into Drosophila.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.001

Introduction

Metazoan organisms need to be able to recognise damaged tissues in order to induce processes that promote tissue repair and that prevent infection caused by barrier breach. Tissue damage is generally accompanied by cell death and release of damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), molecules that are sequestered within healthy cells but become exposed to the extracellular milieu upon loss of membrane integrity and that trigger inflammation, modulate immunity or promote tissue repair (Rock et al., 2010; Zelenay and Reis e Sousa, 2013). Examples of DAMPs include ATP, uric acid, IL-33, IL1α, RNA and DNA (Zitvogel et al., 2010), as well as actin, a ubiquitous and abundant component of the cytoskeleton of all eukaryotes. Exposure of filamentous (F-) actin by dead cells can be recognised by an innate immune receptor known as DNGR-1 (aka CLEC9A) expressed by specialised leucocytes (Ahrens et al., 2012; Hanč et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2012). DNGR-1 is only found in mammals but we recently provided evidence that cytoskeletal exposure may be sign of cell damage also in Drosophila melanogaster. In Drosophila, mechanical and other stresses elicit JAK-STAT pathway signalling, which is implicated in stem cell mobilisation and tissue repair (Ekengren and Hultmark, 2001; Ekengren et al., 2001; Agaisse et al., 2003; Brun et al., 2006; Jiang et al., 2009). We found that injection of purified actin into adult flies led to selective induction of STAT target genes in the fat body, the Drosophila equivalent of the mammalian liver (Srinivasan et al., 2016). The response to actin required the NADPH oxidase Nox, the Src family kinase Src42A, and the adapter Shark and led to an autocrine and paracrine amplification loop that involved the cytokine Upd3 and the JAK-STAT-coupled cytokine receptor Domeless (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Here, we revise our interpretation of those data and report that alpha-actinin (α-actinin), a cytoskeletal protein tightly associated with F-actin, is a more potent inducer of STAT target genes than actin. Like the response to actin, the response to α-actinin requires Nox, Src42A and Shark. Notably, α-actinin can be found in trace amounts in the purified actin preparations that we had used in our initial study and recombinant actin expressed in bacteria and devoid of α-actinin is no longer capable of eliciting the STAT response upon injection into flies. We conclude that α-actinin rather than actin is the key trigger of STAT activation upon injection into Drosophila, suggesting that distinct cytoskeletal proteins can serve as DAMPs across species.

Results and discussion

In our previous study, actin purified from human platelets or rabbit muscle or recombinant actin purified from insect cells elicited the expression of STAT-responsive genes in the fat body when injected into adult Drosophila melanogaster (Srinivasan et al., 2016). While assessing the ability of other cytoskeletal proteins to elicit a similar response, we found that myosin, α-actinin, and, to a lesser degree, tubulin could also drive induction of the STAT responsive gene TotM (Figure 1a). On a per molecule basis, α-actinin was the most potent trigger and was superior to myosin, the second most potent inducer (Figure 1a,b). Robust induction of TotM was observed as early as 6 hr post α-actinin injection and was sustained above control levels for at least two days (Figure 1c). The ability of α-actinin to induce STAT-responsive gene induction was independently reproduced in three laboratories (C.R.S, M.D., L.T.), underscoring the robustness of the result (data not shown). Like actin itself, α-actinin is a component of the cytoskeleton in all higher eukaryotes, where it crosslinks and stabilises actin filaments (Ribeiro et al., 2014). Given its association with actin, α-actinin could therefore be present as a contaminant in purified actin preparations, including the ones used in our studies. Consistent with that possibility, mass spectrometry analysis revealed that α-actinin is the major contaminant of purified actin preparations and accounts for approximately 0.4% of total protein (Figure 1d). Western blot analysis revealed the presence of immunodetectable α-actinin in actin preparations, confirming the mass spectrometry results (Figure 1e). Notably, dose response curves showed that α-actinin was >100 fold more potent than actin on a per molecule basis at eliciting the Drosophila STAT response (Figure 1f). Therefore, it is possible that contamination with α-actinin accounts for the activity of injected actin preparations in Drosophila.

α-actinin is the most potent inducer of STAT-dependent genes.

(a) w1118 flies were injected with equimolar preparations of purified actin, α-actinin, myosin and tubulin (9.4 × 1017 molecules). Relative expression of TotM 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are pooled from two independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with at least triplicate samples. (b) w1118 flies were injected with preparations containing the indicated number of molecules of purified myosin or purified α-actinin. Relative expression of TotM 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with duplicate samples. (c) w1118 flies were injected with buffer or 3.68 ng of purified α-actinin. Relative expression of TotM over a 48 hr period is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with triplicate samples. (d) Purified actin was subjected to mass spectrometry analysis and contaminating proteins are expressed as % of protein preparation. (e) Indicated protein amounts (ng) of purified actin and α-actinin were analysed by western blot using an anti-α-actinin antibody. Data are representative of three independent experiments. (f) w1118 flies were injected with preparations containing the indicated number of molecules of rabbit muscle purified actin or purified α-actinin. Relative expression of TotM 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of three independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with duplicate samples. TotM relative levels were calculated using the housekeeping gene Rp49 as a reference gene. Bars represent mean ± SD.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.002

To address this possibility, we tried to deplete α-actinin from actin preparations. However, we failed to satisfactorily separate actin and α-actinin using multiple approaches, including size exclusion chromatography, ionic strength chromatography or immunodepletion with 14 different antibodies (data not shown). We therefore pursued an alternative strategy of testing recombinant actin and α-actinin expressed in BL21 E. coli, an organism that does not have an actin-based cytoskeleton and in which, therefore, co-purification of α-actinin with actin is not possible. We first assessed the functional integrity of the recombinant proteins purified from bacteria. Using a pelleting assay (Ahrens et al., 2012), we confirmed that recombinant actin was able to form filaments when incubated in polymerisation-favouring conditions (Figure 2a) and that α-actinin was able to associate with those filaments (Figure 2b). Having ascertained that actin and α-actinin are functional and, therefore, correctly folded, we next tested whether they could elicit the expression of STAT-responsive genes in Drosophila. Strikingly, injection of bacterially-expressed actin did not elicit the expression of TotM or of another STAT target gene, Diedel, unlike actin purified from rabbit muscle (Figure 2c). In contrast, bacterially-expressed α-actinin, like α-actinin purified from rabbit muscle, elicited the expression of various STAT-responsive genes, including TotM, TotA and Diedel, in a dose-dependent manner (Figure 2d and data not shown). Neither recombinant bacterially-expressed nor rabbit musclederived α-actinin elicited the expression of Drs and Dpt, Toll and Imd target genes, respectively, 24 hr post injection (Figure 2—figure supplement 1a), indicating that the proteins were devoid of microbial contaminants and confirming specificity for STAT targets. Lack of expression of Drs and Dpt by α-actinin was confirmed at multiple timepoints within a 48 hr period (Figure 2—figure supplement 1b). In contrast, septic injury (Escherichia coli and Micrococcus luteus) induced both Drs and Dpt by 24 hr (Figure 2—figure supplement 1c). Finally, RNAi-mediated knockdown of Nox, Src42A and Shark using three fat body-restricted drivers (c564, r4 and Lpp) abrogated the induction of STAT-responsive genes in response to injection of α-actinin (Figure 3a), whereas knockdown of Nox, Src42A and Shark using a haemocyte-restricted driver (HmlΔ) did not alter the response (Figure 3b). Therefore, injection of bacterially-expressed or rabbit muscle α-actinin into Drosophila melanogaster is sufficient to induce the same response that we previously described to be elicited by injection of actin preparations. Taken together, these data suggest that α-actinin is a major bioactive component in cytoskeletal protein preparations, including actin.

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all
Bacterially-expressed recombinant α-actinin but not actin induces STAT-responsive genes.

(a) Actin purified from rabbit muscle or recombinantly made in bacteria was incubated in either G-actin or F-actin buffers before subjecting samples to ultracentrifugation to separate globular and filamentous actin. Supernatant (S) and pelleted (P) fractions were analysed by Tris-Gylcine gels and visualized by Coomassie staining. Data are representative of two independent experiments. (b) α-actinin from rabbit muscle or recombinantly made in bacteria was added or not to polymerised F-actin. Then, samples were subjected to ultracentrifugation, and proteins in the supernatant (S) or pellet (P) were analysed by Tris-Gylcine gels and visualized by cCoomassie staining. (c) w1118 flies were injected with PBS buffer or equal amounts of bacterially-expressed recombinant or rabbit muscle purified actin (11.04 ng per fly). Relative expression of TotM and Diedel 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with triplicate samples. (d) w1118 flies were injected with PBS buffer, or equal amounts of bacterially-expressed recombinant or rabbit muscle purified α-actinin (3680 pg or 368 pg per fly). Relative expression of TotM and TotA 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 10 flies/sample with triplicate samples. TotM relative levels were calculated using the housekeeping gene Rp49 as a reference gene. Bars represent mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparison test as post-test for pairwise comparisons. Significant differences with Sidak’s multiple comparison test are shown (ns, not significant; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.003
α-actinin induced STAT-dependent genes require Nox, Shark and Src42A expression in the fat body.

(a) Flies in which Shark, Nox, or Src42A were knocked down in the fat body using three different driver lines (c564-Gal80ts, r4-Gal4 or Lpp-Gal4), or control flies lacking UAS-target sequences, were injected with either PBS buffer or rabbit muscle purified α-actinin (13.8 pg per fly). Relative expression of TotM 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 5 – 10 flies/sample with at least triplicate samples. (b) Flies in which Shark, Nox, or Src42A were knocked down in haemocytes (HmlΔ-Gal4), or control flies lacking UAS-target sequences, were injected with either PBS buffer or rabbit muscle purified α-actinin (13.8 pg per fly). Relative expression of TotM 24 hr post injection is shown. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 5 – 10 flies/sample with triplicate samples. TotM relative levels were calculated using the housekeeping gene Rp49 as a reference gene. Bars represent mean ± SD. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Sidak’s multiple comparison test as post-test for pairwise comparisons. Significant differences with Sidak’s multiple comparison test are shown (ns, not significant; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.005

We have previously reported that actin injection, mimicking extracellular cytoskeletal exposure, can trigger the expression of STAT target genes in Drosophila (Srinivasan et al., 2016). Actin is difficult to produce as a recombinant protein in bacteria and commercially-available actin (>99% pure) is traditionally purified from rabbit muscle or human platelets. Here, we demonstrate that the activity of such actin preparations is likely attributable to trace amounts of co-purifying α-actinin. This conclusion is supported by several findings: (1) α-actinin engages the same fat body Nox/Src42A/Shark pathway previously described for injected actin; (2) contamination with α-actinin can account stoichiometrically for the activity of actin preparations, α-actinin being more than one-hundred fold more potent that actin; (3) recombinant α-actinin expressed in bacteria retains activity while activity is lost for bacterially-expressed actin. These new findings support our earlier conclusion that exposure of cytoskeletal components is an evolutionarily-conserved sign of cell damage but suggest that the nature of the cytoskeletal element acting as a DAMP can vary across species. Thus, while (F-) actin is sensed by at least one mammalian receptor, DNGR-1, in Drosophila melanogaster α-actinin appears to act as the dominant trigger for the STAT-dependent response we have studied. Consistent with the notion that α-actinin may be the common denominator of the response to extracellular proteins in Drosophila, preliminary mass spectrometry analysis suggests that trace amounts of α-actinin are also found in tubulin and myosin preparations (data not shown). The inability to deplete α-actinin using antibodies makes it difficult to address the issue of contamination, especially in the case of large multi-subunit proteins such as myosin for which recombinant expression in bacteria is not feasible. More work is needed to clarify whether any cytoskeletal proteins besides α-actinin act as inducers of STAT-responsive genes in Drosophila and to identify the putative receptor(s) responsible for initiating the response.

Materials and methods

Fly maintenance and injections

Request a detailed protocol

Fly maintenance, breeding, transgene induction, injections, septic injury, RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and quantitative real-time PCR were performed as previously described (Srinivasan et al., 2016).

The following stocks were used:

Fly stockDescription
w1118Control strain
;UAS-Shark IR;
(Shark Fr RNAi)
Interfering RNA for knockdown of Shark. Kindly donated by Marc Freeman.
w;c564-Gal4;Tub-Gal80tsTemperature-sensitive fat body-specific driver line.
;UAS-Src42A IRVDRC ID: 100708
;UAS-Nox IRVDRC ID: 100753
;;r4-Gal4/TM6C.Sb1Fat body-specific driver line
;;Lpp-Gal4/TM6.Sb1Fat body-specific driver line
HmlΔ-Gal4/CyOHaemocyte-specific driver

Purified cytoskeletal proteins

Request a detailed protocol

Purified cytoskeletal proteins were reconstituted and stored as advised by the supplier (Cytoskeleton Inc).

Bacterial expression of cytoskeletal proteins

Request a detailed protocol

Rosetta-2 BL21 E. coli bacteria were transformed with pET8c-His6-human Actinin-2 as described (Ribeiro et al., 2014). A starter culture was made by inoculating Ampicillin-containing LB with a well-defined colony and incubating overnight at 37°C. Large-scale expression was carried out using Overnight Express LB medium (Novagen) supplemented with 10 ml glycerol inoculated with 2 ml of the starter culture. Cell growth and protein expression was carried out at 30°C for 16 hr. Cells from these high-density shaking cultures (OD600 > 8 A.U) were harvested by centrifugation for 15 min at 7500 x g. For purification of the His-tagged protein, the bacterial pellet was re-suspended in 50 ml of lysis buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 150 mM NaCl, 0.1% Triton X-100 and antiproteases (Roche). Cells were disrupted by sonication (5 × 30 s) and lysates were centrifuged at 18,000 x g for 30 min at 4°C. Clarified lysates were incubated with 3 ml Ni-NTA agarose at 4°C for 16 hr on rotation. Beads were washed three times for 5 min at 4 ˚C with 25 ml wash buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, antiproteases, 5 mM Imidazole) . After the final wash, beads were incubated with 10 ml buffer A to elute His-tagged proteins (50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 150 mM NaCl, antiproteases, 2 mM beta-mercaptoethanol, 250 – 500 mM Imidazole). Two elutions were collected and subsequently purified to homogeneity by anion exchange and size exclusion chromatography. To that end, α-actinin eluted from the Ni-NTA affinity resin was dialysed into buffer containing 50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 7.5), 2 mM beta-mercaptoethanol and applied to a Mono Q 5/50 anion exchange column (GE Life Sciences) equilibrated with 50 mM Tris (pH 7.5) and 1 mM DTT. Bound α-actinin was eluted by application of a NaCl gradient from 0 to 1M over 30 column volumes. The peak containing α-actinin was determined by SDS-PAGE, the relevant fractions pooled and concentrated to 0.5 ml and applied to a S75 10/300 size exclusion column equilibrated with PBS (pH 7.4) and 1 mM DTT. Fractions containing α-actinin were pooled and stored until required. Recombinant bacterially-expressed human smooth muscle actin was purchased from a commercial source (ab134555, Abcam).

Mass spectrometry

Request a detailed protocol

Protein preparations were subjected to SDS/PAGE and migrated approximately 2 cm into the gel. The gel lanes were excised and proteins were in-gel digested using trypsin. Tryptic peptides were analysed with an LTQ Orbitrap-Velos mass spectrometer coupled to an Ultimate3000 HPLC equipped with an EASY-Spray nanosource (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Raw data was processed using MaxQuant v1.3.05 with intensity based absolute quantification (iBAQ) selected as the quantification algorithm. The output table was imported into Perseus software v1.4.0.2, and percentages of contamination were calculated using the untransformed iBAQ values.

Actin pelleting assay

Request a detailed protocol

Performed as described by the supplier (Cytoskeleton). Briefly, actin was diluted in modified G-actin buffer (5 mM Tris HCl pH 8.0, 0.2 mM CaCl2, 0.2 mM ATP, 0.5 mM DTT) and incubated on ice for 60 min for complete depolymerisation of actin oligomers. Subsequently, samples were supplemented with F-actin buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 50 mM KCl, 2 mM MgCl2 and 1 mM ATP) incubated for 60 min at RT. Samples were then centrifuged for 1 hr at 100,000 x g, and protein levels in the supernatant and pellet were assessed by SDS-PAGE and Coomassie staining. For α-actinin pelleting assays the same protocol was used, with the only modification that α-actinin was added to the polymerising actin filaments.

Western blotting

Request a detailed protocol

Protein samples were resuspended in 1X Laemmli SDS-PAGE buffer and boiled for 7 min at 95°C. Protein was resolved on Tris-Glycine 4 – 20% precast gels (Bio-Rad). α-actinin and actin was detected via immunoblotting with anti-actin (Clone C4, MAB1501, Millipore) and anti-actinin (3134S, Cell Signaling Technology) antibodies.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

Decision letter

  1. Bruno Lemaître
    Reviewing Editor; Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
  2. Tadatsugu Taniguchi
    Senior Editor; Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Japan
  3. Bruno Lemaître
    Reviewer; Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your article "The cytoskeletal protein α-actinin accounts for the bioactivity of actin preparations in inducing STAT target genes in Drosophila melanogaster" for consideration by eLife. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, including Bruno Lemaître as the Reviewing Editor and Reviewer #1, and the evaluation has been overseen by Tadatsugu Taniguchi as the Senior Editor.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission.

Summary:

This study is a follow up to the authors recent work, which demonstrated that actin is a DAMP in Drosophila. This finding is expanded on here, with the interesting observation that actin is not actually responsible for the immunostimulatory activity observed. Rather, an actin binding protein, α-actinin, is responsible. The best evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the new studies presented, whereby actin that was purified from rabbit muscle contained immunostimulatory activity, but actin purified from bacteria did not. This finding, coupled to studies demonstrating that pure preparations of α-actinin are more stimulatory than "contaminated" actin preps from rabbit, are compelling. Genetic evidenced is presented to demonstrate that the pathway activated by α-actinin is the same as that described previously for actin.

Essential revisions:

1) It is fortunate that the same authors can identify themselves that this was not actin but α-actinin the elicitor. Their conclusion would be reinforced if another laboratory could reproduce independently their observations. Was the injection experiment carried out independently in the Wood, Dionne or Teixeira lab (order the product and monitor upd3 upon injection)? This should be the case and this should be mentioned in the paper.

2) Many studies have shown that upd3 is produced by hemocytes not the fat-body (Agaisse, 2003; Chakrabarti, 2016). C564 is a Gal4 driver that target both hemocyte and fat body. I would recommend that the authors test their hypothesis using more specific drivers: hmlGal4 (hemocyte) and Lpp-Gal4 (fat body) to reinforce their conclusion that fat body not hemocytes is sensing actinin.

3) The three reviewers consider that the present paper is more a correction (of a mistake) than an extension. This should be mentioned in the Abstract and text (Introduction, 'corrected' instead of 'extend').

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.011

Author response

Essential revisions:

1) It is fortunate that the same authors can identify themselves that this was not actin but α-actinin the elicitor. Their conclusion would be reinforced if another laboratory could reproduce independently their observations. Was the injection experiment carried out independently in the Wood, Dionne or Teixeira lab (order the product and monitor upd3 upon injection)? This should be the case and this should be mentioned in the paper.

As requested, we asked for the experiment to be independently reproduced by the Dionne and Teixeira lab. Both labs carried out experiments as per our protocol but using α-actinin that they purchased from Cytoskeleton (independently from each other and independently from the Reis e Sousa lab). Both the Dionne and Teixeira labs reproduced the observation that intrathoracic injection of α-actinin results in upregulation of STAT-responsive genes such as TotM (assessed by both labs) and TotA (additionally assessed by the Teixeira lab). A sentence was added to the manuscript mentioning these experiments (Results and Discussion, first paragraph). The results of one of two independent experiments per lab are shown below in Author response image 1 and 2 (figure legends provided by the originators).

Author response image 1
Injection experiment performed in the Dionne lab.

Relative expression of TotM 18hr post injection. Data are representative of two independent experiments with 3 flies/sample. Relative levels of expression were calculated using the housekeeping gene Rlp1 as a reference gene. Bars represent mean ± SD.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.009
Author response image 2
Injection experiment performed in the Teixeira lab.

3-6 day old w1118 DrosDel isogenic (Ryder et al., 2004; Chrostek et al., 2013) females were injected with 36.8nL of either buffer (4mM Tris-HCL pH 7.6, 4mM NaCl, 20µM EDTA, 1% (w/v) sucrose and 2% w/v dextran) or α–Actinin in buffer (1μg/μl, Cytoskeleton, #027AT01-A). Flies were collected 24h post infection and RNA extracted from 5 pools of 10 flies per condition, using tripleXtractor reagent (GRiSP, # GB23.0200) followed by DNase treatment (Promega, #M6101). cDNA synthesis was performed with M-MLV Reverse Transcriptase (Promega, #M1705) and Random Primers (Promega, #C1181). cDNA was diluted ten times in DEPC water (Invitrogen, #46-2224) and analysed for gene expression by qPCR using iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-rad, #1725125). Reactions were carried out using a QuantStudio 7 Flex machine. Relative expression ratios of TotM (A) and TotA (B) were calculated with the Pfaffl method (Pfaffl, 2001), using Rp49 as reference gene and buffer injected flies as control values. TotM and TotA expression is induced by Actinin (linear mixed model, p < 0.001).

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.010

2) Many studies have shown that upd3 is produced by hemocytes not the fat-body (Agaisse, 2003; Chakrabarti, 2016). C564 is a Gal4 driver that target both hemocyte and fat body. I would recommend that the authors test their hypothesis using more specific drivers: hmlGal4 (hemocyte) and Lpp-Gal4 (fat body) to reinforce their conclusion that fat body not hemocytes is sensing actinin.

As suggested by the reviewers, we have repeated knockdown of Nox, Src42A or Shark using additional fat body drivers (Lpp-Gal4 and r4-Gal4), as well as a haemocyte driver (HmlΔ-Gal4). Knockdown with all three fat body drivers (c564-Gal4, Lpp-Gal4 and r4-Gal4) resulted in complete or nearly complete loss of TotM induction upon injection of α-actinin, whereas knockdown using HmlΔ-Gal4 did not have an appreciable effect. These data are now included in Figure 3 of the manuscript. We tried to measure upd3 induction by RT-qPCR, but did not obtain clear cut results – we discussed our inability to convincingly measure upd3 transcripts in our previous study (Srinivasan et al., 2016). However, in our previous study we knocked down upd3 specifically in haemocytes (or depleted haemocytes altogether) and found that this had no impact on induction of STAT-responsive genes (Srinivasan et al., 2016 – Figures 5C, D). Although those experiments utilised purified actin and not α-actinin, we believe that those data, together with the experiments included in the present study, support the notion that haemocytes are dispensable for the response to cytoskeletal protein injection, which involves the fat body.

3) The three reviewers consider that the present paper is more a correction (of a mistake) than an extension. This should be mentioned in the Abstract and text (Introduction, 'corrected' instead of 'extend').

We are uncomfortable with stating that we are “correcting a mistake” as it can be read to mean that either the data in the previous paper were incorrect or that we made an actual mistake (such as misread actin for actinin on a tube label). In actual fact, we are revising the interpretation of those data and refining the conclusions. We therefore have altered the Abstract and Introduction, as requested, to state that we revise our earlier conclusion/revise interpretation of the earlier data.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38636.012

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Oliver Gordon

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—original draft
    Contributed equally with
    Conor M Henry
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2567-2482
  2. Conor M Henry

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing—original draft
    Contributed equally with
    Oliver Gordon
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7504-5121
  3. Naren Srinivasan

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Present address
    GlaxoSmithKline, Stevenage, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Writing—review and editing
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  4. Susan Ahrens

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Present address
    Voisin Consulting Life Sciences, Surrey, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  5. Anna Franz

    Department of Biochemistry, Biomedical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  6. Safia Deddouche

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Present address
    Open Innovation Access Platform, Strasbourg, France
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  7. Probir Chakravarty

    Bioinformatics, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  8. David Phillips

    Genomics-Equipment Park, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Present address
    Thermo Fisher Scientific, Renfrew, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  9. Roger George

    Structural Biology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Resources
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  10. Svend Kjaer

    Structural Biology, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Resources
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  11. David Frith

    Proteomics, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  12. Ambrosius P Snijders

    Proteomics, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Investigation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  13. Rita S Valente

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia, Oeiras, Portugal
    Contribution
    Validation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  14. Carolina J Simoes da Silva

    Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Validation
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  15. Luis Teixeira

    Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciencia, Oeiras, Portugal
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8326-6645
  16. Barry Thompson

    Epithelial Biology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0103-040X
  17. Marc S Dionne

    MRC Centre for Molecular Bacteriology and Infection, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8283-1750
  18. Will Wood

    Edinburgh Medical School, MRC Centre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Involved in the early phases of the project
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  19. Caetano Reis e Sousa

    Immunobiology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London, United Kingdom
    Contribution
    Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing
    For correspondence
    Caetano@crick.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7392-2119

Funding

Francis Crick Institute (FC001136)

  • Caetano Reis e Sousa

Wellcome Trust (WT106973MA)

  • Caetano Reis e Sousa

Federation of European Biochemical Societies

  • Conor M Henry

Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PTDC/BEX- GMG/3128/2014)

  • Luis Teixeira

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Acknowledgements

We thank Nic Tapon, Paul Martin, Maxine Holder, Georgina Fletcher, Ieva Gailite and members of the Immunobiology Laboratory for helpful discussions and suggestions. We are grateful to Kristina Djinovic-Carugo for the α-actinin plasmid. We thank the Francis Crick Institute Genomics Equipment Park, Proteomics, Structural Biology, and the Fly facility for assistance. We also thank the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center for Drosophila lines and Flybase for online resources. This work was supported by The Francis Crick Institute, which receives core funding from Cancer Research UK (FC001136), the UK Medical Research Council (FC001136), and the Wellcome Trust (FC001136), and by Investigator Award WT106973MA from the Wellcome Trust to CRS. LT is funded by the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (www.fct.pt) grant PTDC/BEX- GMG/3128/2014. CMH was supported by a long-term fellowship from the Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS).

Senior Editor

  1. Tadatsugu Taniguchi, Institute of Industrial Science, The University of Tokyo, Japan

Reviewing Editor

  1. Bruno Lemaître, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

Reviewer

  1. Bruno Lemaître, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland

Publication history

  1. Received: May 25, 2018
  2. Accepted: September 26, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 27, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 3, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Gordon et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,185
    Page views
  • 168
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    David W Hawman et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) is a severe tick-borne febrile illness with wide geographic distribution. CCHF is caused by infection with the Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus (CCHFV) and case fatality rates can be as high as 30%. Despite causing severe disease in humans, our understanding of the host and viral determinants of CCHFV pathogenesis are limited. A major limitation in the investigation of CCHF has been the lack of suitable small animal models. Wild-type mice are resistant to clinical isolates of CCHFV and consequently, mice must be deficient in type I interferon responses to study the more severe aspects of CCHFV. We report here a mouse-adapted variant of CCHFV that recapitulates in adult, immunocompetent mice the severe CCHF observed in humans. This mouse-adapted variant of CCHFV significantly improves our ability to study host and viral determinants of CCHFV-induced disease in a highly tractable mouse model.

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Medicine
    Danielle Janosevic et al.
    Research Article

    Sepsis is a dynamic state that progresses at variable rates and has life-threatening consequences. Staging patients along the sepsis timeline requires a thorough knowledge of the evolution of cellular and molecular events at the tissue level. Here, we investigated the kidney, an organ central to the pathophysiology of sepsis. Single-cell RNA-sequencing in a murine endotoxemia model revealed the involvement of various cell populations to be temporally organized and highly orchestrated. Endothelial and stromal cells were the first responders. At later time points, epithelial cells upregulated immune-related pathways while concomitantly downregulating physiological functions such as solute homeostasis. Sixteen hours after endotoxin, there was global cell–cell communication failure and organ shutdown. Despite this apparent organ paralysis, upstream regulatory analysis showed significant activity in pathways involved in healing and recovery. This rigorous spatial and temporal definition of murine endotoxemia will uncover precise biomarkers and targets that can help stage and treat human sepsis.